Impressions from Ford F-150 Lightning EV Tour -- Boston

[Pedaldude]

I would like to see how well Powerboost technology would work with the 6.2 V8 in the Super Duty, perhaps even as a plug-in hybrid.

As far as the Lightning platform, replacing the front drive motor with the 2.5Atkinson/Ecvt hybrid powertrain that they already have in stock would be an interesting experiment and while eliminating all complaints about range/charging, will likely never happen because hybrids are old news and not sexy anymore, not to mention no longer eligible for HOV lane exemption in most places or tax incentives. However, with current technological and infrastructure limitations, an ICE light hybrid would be more practical than a full BEV 1/2-ton truck.

...I can't find any documentation that accounts for what they did to achieve it. Same axle and leaf pack as the non-Powerboost. My only guess is that the battery storage area crossmember might have allowed for the frame to be specified to carry that additional GVW?
Without that #300 increase, you would have been 100#'s over?

GVWRs aren't just related to static load carrying ability, they need to accommodate dynamic factors and with a pickup truck; you never know what stupid things that an owner can do to poorly load the space provided in the bed. Since a lot of the Powerboost's extra dry weight is in a fixed position down low, the engineers likely decided it was safe to maintain a similar payload as the same lighter non-Powerboost configuration. Lower CG means less weight shift during braking and accelerating up hills, so they can treat dynamic load transfer differently.

Oftentimes, GAWRs combined exceed GCWR and that is why. Of course, other factors are involved but that's the simplified version.

Sponsored

 

[astricklin]

The problem with the phev 1/2 ton truck is to get any amount of range from it, it will be very expensive. Currently a powerboost hybrid is more expensive than the lightning in XLT trim. Adding enough battery to get 30 miles of battery range is going to be extremely costly and in the end hurt your fuel economy once the battery has depleted. The hybrid in it's current form is the perfect solution for anyone who the lightning doesn't work for.

 

[Pedaldude]

The problem with the phev 1/2 ton truck is to get any amount of range from it, it will be very expensive.

Adding enough battery to get 30 miles of battery range is going to be extremely costly...

But...

Currently a powerboost hybrid is more expensive than the lightning in XLT trim.

The Lightning has hundreds of miles of range, a whole-ass Maverick costs $20K, the 2.5/eCVT can't cost much.

The hybrid in it's current form is the perfect solution for anyone who the lightning doesn't work for.

The Powerboost is a marvel of engineering and uses the most complex systems available to Ford. Because of that, It's amazing that the 3.5 twin turbo mated with the hydraulic 10-speed transmission and hybrid drive is affordable at all.

The 3.5TT would have been competitive against purpose built handmade racing engines of the 1980's and it's mass produced! Just the turbos alone are crazy expensive because of the high stresses involved and fine tolerances required.

The ten speed is so damned complicated that Ford and GM teamed up for its development. It's currently the ultimate form of the revolutionary Hydramatic transmission, which after its introduction changed the experience of driving a car forever. Incidentally, since brand identity isn't tied with transmissions very much; both Ford and Rolls Royce bought the transmissions directly from GM. With powerful electric prime movers available and cheaper wet clutch transmissions becoming available for both ICE and EV powertrains, I have a hard time believing that much further development of the torque converter based hydraulic transmission will happen.

I think we're currently at the same point now with passenger cars and trucks that aviation was just after WWII, when the turbo compound engine (a combination of a radial engine and gas recovery turbine) powered the last Lockheed Super Constellations during the dawn of the jet age.

While a better solution than the Toyota Tundra hybrid, the Powerboost is super complicated. I feel that a scaled up Ford eCVT would work so well behind a stroked 3.3 cammed to run the Atkinson cycle that it could compete with the current Powerboost MPG wise and still be cheap enough to replace the base engine/transmission configuration.

The 2.5/eCVT might even be small enough to be clocked to lay flat in between the Lightning frame rails, so that much of the front cargo area could be preserved. Kind of like the BMW K100 motorcycle engines from the 80's. The battery kWh could be reduced slightly compared with the Lightning to make up for the increased weight and your average driving would be 100% EV around the city driven reasonably, but then you can always have the ICE for highway range, heavy acceleration, towing and as a generator during blackouts. Without the huge weight and cost penalty of the V6-TT and 10-speed. Not to mention ditching the live rear axle and prop-shaft.

 

[sotek2345]

But...



The Lightning has hundreds of miles of range, a whole-ass Maverick costs $20K, the 2.5/eCVT can't cost much.



The Powerboost is a marvel of engineering and uses the most complex systems available to Ford. Because of that, It's amazing that the 3.5 twin turbo mated with the hydraulic 10-speed transmission and hybrid drive is affordable at all.

The 3.5TT would have been competitive against purpose built handmade racing engines of the 1980's and it's mass produced! Just the turbos alone are crazy expensive because of the high stresses involved and fine tolerances required.

The ten speed is so damned complicated that Ford and GM teamed up for its development. It's currently the ultimate form of the revolutionary Hydramatic transmission, which after its introduction changed the experience of driving a car forever. Incidentally, since brand identity isn't tied with transmissions very much; both Ford and Rolls Royce bought the transmissions directly from GM. With powerful electric prime movers available and cheaper wet clutch transmissions becoming available for both ICE and EV powertrains, I have a hard time believing that much further development of the torque converter based hydraulic transmission will happen.

I think we're currently at the same point now with passenger cars and trucks that aviation was just after WWII, when the turbo compound engine (a combination of a radial engine and gas recovery turbine) powered the last Lockheed Super Constellations during the dawn of the jet age.

While a better solution than the Toyota Tundra hybrid, the Powerboost is super complicated. I feel that a scaled up Ford eCVT would work so well behind a stroked 3.3 cammed to run the Atkinson cycle that it could compete with the current Powerboost MPG wise and still be cheap enough to replace the base engine/transmission configuration.

The 2.5/eCVT might even be small enough to be clocked to lay flat in between the Lightning frame rails, so that much of the front cargo area could be preserved. Kind of like the BMW K100 motorcycle engines from the 80's. The battery kWh could be reduced slightly compared with the Lightning to make up for the increased weight and your average driving would be 100% EV around the city driven reasonably, but then you can always have the ICE for highway range, heavy acceleration, towing and as a generator during blackouts. Without the huge weight and cost penalty of the V6-TT and 10-speed. Not to mention ditching the live rear axle and prop-shaft.

The issue is that you then need a gas motor and transmission combination that can support full load operation (i.e. max towing /payload) and that 2.5 isn't up to the task. People can and will run the battery down and drive on just the ICE motor.

Unless you use it as a range extender only (just charge the battery, no drive train connection), but then that is a lot of weight to add that could have just given you more battery.

 

[Snakebitten]

Great posts guys. Well thought out compared to my "I wish Ford would" posts.

It's always far more complicated than what most of us consumers might think.

One of you mentioned how the Powerboost is currently Ford's most sophisticated/complicated package. And I completely agree. In fact, if Ford actually makes a profit on the Powerboost, in my opinion the Lightning would be more profitable. Especially in the above fleet trim.

I still think that if the Powerboost continues in popularity and perhaps even exceeds Ford's estimates (If), perhaps they would add the HDPP option for the drivetrain. I know it's a bit of oversimplification to imply the existing HDPP already accepts the 3.5EB 10r80 transmission, so how hard could it be? .........but Ford already thought the Powerboost was worth what had to have been a sizable investment.

Admittedly there's that little voice in my head that says Ford really doesn't even want people to buy an HDPP, but has to make them in order to boast First in class Payload and Towing. It's a marketing unicorn truck.

 

[astricklin]

Admittedly there's that little voice in my head that says Ford really doesn't even want people to buy an HDPP, but has to make them in order to boast First in class Payload and Towing. It's a marketing unicorn truck.

Ford wants you to move up to the super duty and honestly if you're doing any amount of towing something 10k lbs you probably really should, especially if it's a giant camper.

 

[Snakebitten]

Ford wants you to move up to the super duty and honestly if you're doing any amount of towing something 10k lbs you probably really should, especially if it's a giant camper.

No doubt that Ford wants the customer to jump to the SuperDuty. I agree.

But those that go through the effort, and often the wait, are getting the best of both worlds with the HDPP. It has the Payload of some F250's, but the comfort and economy of the F150 when not towing.

My brother can drop 800-1000#s on the WDH and still have the Payload left that I START with. It's a heck of a truck!

 

[Pedaldude]

The issue is that you then need a gas motor and transmission combination that can support full load operation (i.e. max towing /payload) and that 2.5 isn't up to the task.

With just the 2.5/eCVT, Maverick's payload approaches 1500lbs and towing is 2,000lbs. The rear transaxle on Lightning is over 200hp and 300lb-ft of torque. I think that payload/towing limitations would not be impacted very much, if at all.

...People can and will run the battery down and drive on just the ICE motor.

Sure beats having to be towed/pushed home a mile from your house/the middle of nowhere or knocking on stranger's doors asking for a long ass extension cord to charge your truck. Though it's doubtful that the existing 2.5/eCVT could tow on ICE alone on anything other than flat highway used in a heavier truck.

...that is a lot of weight to add that could have just given you more battery.

This is the same ad-hoc battery range argument that everyone likes to bring up when complaining about towing range. The Lightning drives just as far with 1,800lbs of battery as 200lbs of gas will in the ICE trucks. That's nearly 10:1 pound for pound, gas vs. Li-ion as far as range. Meaning you are going roughly ten times as far with a pound of gas as a pound of Li-ion cells.

Let's say that the Lightning's front transaxle/motor unit weighs 400lbs and the Maverick power pack can't weigh more than that. Remove 600lbs of battery and you'll have room for a 14 gallon fuel tank and have a truck 500lbs less than the Lightning with 2/3 of the BEV only range but with an equal amount of HEV only range. So we have a theoretical range 50% greater than Lightning's with potentially 500lbs more payload and a built in generator. You can even have an Airport mode, where the ICE engine can maintain the battery so that it doesn't brick if you park it somewhere for a long time without an outlet. For the time being, it would probably cost less than the Lightning until battery production ramps up. It won't have the performance of either the Lightning or Powerboost but not much does.

Just like adding more battery and more weight, there's no free lunch. I can also almost guarantee that once most people are driving EVs, grid energy costs will rise to where the cost of going from point A to point B will be just the same relative to what it is today because all the energy companies will still want their pound of flesh.

 

[techguydave]

I can also almost guarantee that once most people are driving EVs, grid energy costs will rise to where the cost of going from point A to point B will be just the same relative to what it is today because all the energy companies will still want their pound of flesh.

While not a solution for everyone (apartment dwellers, house renters, people who can't afford it, etc), the difference is one can generate their EV's "fuel" themselves via solar panels. I don't see anyone making their own gasoline to avoid the rising prices.

As energy companies raise costs, the ROI of solar makes more and more sense. Not everyone can afford it, of course, but it's a lot more accessible than starting an oil refinery.

 

[Pedaldude]

While not a solution for everyone...the difference is one can generate their EV's "fuel" themselves via solar panels...

Definitely not a solution for everyone! I would hate to live in anywhere but the Southwest and depend on solar energy. Your state is among the worst when it comes to coal consumption:

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OH

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=OH

Your 3% of renewable energy is mostly from wind power and because Ohio is such a poor candidate for renewables, to meet renewable energy quotas; non-renewable renewable sources will qualify as silly as it sounds, it would simply require using more efficient technology to harness otherwise wasted energy.

Combined cycle gas turbines are pretty awesome but are also relatively expensive to operate. Those costs are doubled, if not more by the time they reach the electrical outlets.

Already, in parts of SoCal, it's cheaper to operate your own personal diesel generator than to buy it from the electric companies. If the rest of the country follows California's lead, it might become that way everywhere else.

it's sad to think but it might become cheaper in the near future to charge your Lightning from your Powerboost overnight!

...I don't see anyone making their own gasoline...

Frans Fischer und Hans Tropsch would beg to differ and synthetic fuel has been a thing for nearly a century. It can be made locally and a surprisingly large amount is made annually from both non-renewable and renewable sources.

The real goal shouldn't be to use more alternative energy sources, it needs to be using less energy while using alternative energy. Which is why I predict that elected officials will limit the wattage for EV motors, effectively creating the same CAFE style mandates forcing consumers into smaller, lighter vehicles that trucks like Lightning have granted a temporary reprieve.

I expect motor wattage and battery kWh capacity to be limited either through taxes or other legislation sooner rather than later unless more effective recycling of Li-ion battery packs become available by the time the millions of tons of Ford BEV Li-ion cells reach the end of their useful life.

 

[greenne]

While not a solution for everyone (apartment dwellers, house renters, people who can't afford it, etc), the difference is one can generate their EV's "fuel" themselves via solar panels. I don't see anyone making their own gasoline to avoid the rising prices.

As energy companies raise costs, the ROI of solar makes more and more sense. Not everyone can afford it, of course, but it's a lot more accessible than starting an oil refinery.

FWIW(as an example)....we put as many solar panels as there was room on our roof of single family home. We own it and have no plans to move. Currently at ~9.15KW system. Living in upstate NY with crappy weather...cloudy w/lots of snow-- but generous tax incentives our estimated payback is ~8yrs.

As always YMMV depending on location, situation and weather..but for almost everyone solar is a long term proposition with significant cost upfront. With solar panels having a service life of 25yrs+ I'm sure the payback will be huge(17yrs or more of FREE electricity).

It does require planning and forethought....a lot of Americans lack ability(or desire) to plan ahead and think big picture. Its also a leap of faith to tie yourself financially to a location several years down the road.

 

[Snakebitten]

it's sad to think but it might become cheaper in the near future to charge your Lightning from your Powerboost overnight!

That would be sad, but I'm ready if.

I've probably ran mine in generator mode more than most. It's pretty efficient for what it accomplishes, but I hope it's never the cheaper watt than the highwire.

 

[techguydave]

Its also a leap of faith to tie yourself financially to a location several years down the road.

Absolutely. We're still waiting to see how the economy and housing market plays out before deciding if this will be a long-term home or a stepping stone before a build. Hard to justify solar (or any major home project) if you don't know if you'll be here 10 years from now.

 

[sotek2345]

FWIW(as an example)....we put as many solar panels as there was room on our roof of single family home. We own it and have no plans to move. Currently at ~9.15KW system. Living in upstate NY with crappy weather...cloudy w/lots of snow-- but generous tax incentives our estimated payback is ~8yrs.

As always YMMV depending on location, situation and weather..but for almost everyone solar is a long term proposition with significant cost upfront. With solar panels having a service life of 25yrs+ I'm sure the payback will be huge(17yrs or more of FREE electricity).

It does require planning and forethought....a lot of Americans lack ability(or desire) to plan ahead and think big picture. Its also a leap of faith to tie yourself financially to a location several years down the road.

Jealous - because of our older house, we could only put panels on our addition - nothing on our main house (roof couldn't support the weight), so we only have a 2kW system. Still hoping to expand at some point.

 

[greenne]

Absolutely. We're still waiting to see how the economy and housing market plays out before deciding if this will be a long-term home or a stepping stone before a build. Hard to justify solar (or any major home project) if you don't know if you'll be here 10 years from now.

In theory..you'd get some recoupment in an increased sales price(if you had to move). However that is far from a sure thing.

One thing I can say is research when/if you decide to go solar. I was surprised by the wide range of costs-- big national installers are not always the cheapest. Also compare equipment as there is a large variance in quality, longevity and power output. A lot of information can be gleaned from the internet.

Sponsored